Very similar to what I read recently:
> ...the question of repeatable processes versus the flash of brilliance.
> In many cases, there isn't much of a compromise between the two. A really great novel is never written using a repeatable process (although pretty good mass-produced junk fiction can be and is). Meanwhile, a widget factory runs on repeatable processes, and doesn't require much brilliance once it gets going. (Hopefully there was some brilliance in the original widget design.)
> ...the never-ending conflict between "Software Engineering" and "Computer Science." Software Engineering claims that software can be created faster, better, and more reliably if you can just define repeatable processes and hire a bunch of code monkeys to implement those processes. For some things, like banking applications and warehouse management software, it works: well, at least it works better than trying to do the same thing without your repeatable processes.
Computer Science, on the other hand, is all about the flashes of brilliance and the "aha!" moments.
> ...
> Unfortunately, it seems that two totally different social structures are needed to produce repeatability versus brilliant insight. A structure that encourages repeatability will stifle creative insight; but a structure that encourages creativity produces non-repeatable results, almost by definition.
> ...I do know the form of the solution: you want a process that repeatably produces brilliant results. If you could do that, you would be unstoppable.*
More compromises (2006),
https://archive.is/EEMxl | https://apenwarr.ca/log/20060210